The Trinity made easy

[civic]

God is a Trinity of persons, a Tri-Unity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are not three gods and not three beings. They are three distinct persons; yet, they are the one God. Each Person has a will, can speak, can love, etc., and these are qualities or characteristics of personhood. The Trinity is in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance, essence, nature or being. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

Jesus, the Son, is one Divine Person with two natures: Divine and Human. This is called the Hypostatic Union. The Holy Spirit is also Divine in nature and is self aware, the third person of the Trinity.

The word "person" is used to describe the three of the Godhead because the word "person" is appropriate. A person is self aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. Each of the three Persons in the Trinity demonstrate these qualities.

What is so hard to understand about God being Triune? The Father is not the the Son. The Son is not the the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. God is a Tri-Unity of 3 Persons who are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods nor is the Trinity three beings. We call them "Persons" because each one of Them have a will, speak, teach, love, receive praise, prayer, share the same Glory, etc. These are all characteristics of person-hood. They are of one substance, nature, essence or Being. You cannot have the Father without the Son, the Son without the Father, The Son without the Holy Spirit or you would not have the God according to Scripture, you would have a false god or what is known as an idol.

Lets discuss

hope this helps,

 

[atpollard]

Lets discuss

"Easy" seems a bit optimistic.

The word "person" is used to describe the three of the Godhead because the word "person" is appropriate. A person is self aware, can speak, love, hate, say "you," "yours," "me," "mine," etc. Each of the three Persons in the Trinity demonstrate these qualities.

What is so hard to understand about God being Triune? The Father is not the the Son. The Son is not the the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. God is a Tri-Unity of 3 Persons who are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not three gods nor is the Trinity three beings. We call them "Persons" because each one of Them have a will, speak, teach, love, receive praise, prayer, share the same Glory, etc. These are all characteristics of person-hood. They are of one substance, nature, essence or Being. You cannot have the Father without the Son, the Son without the Father, The Son without the Holy Spirit or you would not have the God according to Scripture, you would have a false god or what is known as an idol.

This sounds like a "pantheon" of three Gods that are all "co-joined twins" ... like a three-headed giant with one body. Historically, the word "person" was viewed as problematic by early theologians. It made them sound too "independent" of one another when they were ONE GOD, but no "better" word could be found. Anything less diminishes the distinctness of the Father from the Son and "PERSON" diminishes the unity of the Father with the Son (both being ONE GOD). [I leave out the Holy Spirit simply because the long debate centered on the Father and Son and was resolved long before the Third 'Person' was added after a very short discussion.]

I think the Athanasian Creed is about the best that we are going to do for a description:

Now this is the catholic* faith: [*note: "catholic", with a small c, means "universal"]

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.

Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.

So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

 

[civic]

"Easy" seems a bit optimistic.


This sounds like a "pantheon" of three Gods that are all "co-joined twins" ... like a three-headed giant with one body. Historically, the word "person" was viewed as problematic by early theologians. It made them sound too "independent" of one another when they were ONE GOD, but no "better" word could be found. Anything less diminishes the distinctness of the Father from the Son and "PERSON" diminishes the unity of the Father with the Son (both being ONE GOD). [I leave out the Holy Spirit simply because the long debate centered on the Father and Son and was resolved long before the Third 'Person' was added after a very short discussion.]

I think the Athanasian Creed is about the best that we are going to do for a description:

Now this is the catholic* faith: [*note: "catholic", with a small c, means "universal"]

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.

Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.

Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.

Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.

So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.

Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.

Yes that Creed is excellent along with Chalcedon. Thanks for your input. I have no problem with the word person but I know many do have an issue using the word.

 

[atpollard]

Yes that Creed is excellent along with Chalcedon. Thanks for your input. I have no problem with the word person but I know many do have an issue using the word.

I can understand the "issue". Imagine for a second that you were raised with an IDENTICAL TWIN. At the DNA level, you two are absolutely indistinguishable. Are you one person or two? If you are "gods", are you one god or two?

"Person" implies different "minds" ... as in the TRINITY gets together and casts a vote with "Majority wins". The Bible tells us that there is ONE GOD and the FATHER and SON are in perfect agreement 100% of the time ... the will of the Father is the will of the Son is the will of the Spirit.

 

[Diserner]

If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

Hm. That seems to rob each one of the attribute of aseity. I'm not sure what to think about it.

I don't think this is classically affirmed, at least I've never seen it before.

What is so hard to understand about God being Triune?

It's not so much the concept as much as harmonizing it with a consistent singular pronoun in Scripture.

And that fact that it wasn't revealed in the OT in any clear way.

 

[civic]

Hm. That seems to rob each one of the attribute of aseity. I'm not sure what to think about it.

I don't think this is classically affirmed, at least I've never seen it before.



It's not so much the concept as much as harmonizing it with a consistent singular pronoun in Scripture.

And that fact that it wasn't revealed in the OT in any clear way.

Here are some references, allusions to the Plurality of God in the O.T.

Gen 1:26
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

Gen 3:22
Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

Gen 11:7
Come, let Us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

Gen 19:24
Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven;

Isa 6:8
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?

Isa 48:16
"Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there.
And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His Spirit."

Isa 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To bring good news to the afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives
And freedom to prisoners;

Ps 110:1
The Lord says to my Lord:
"Sit at My right hand
Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."


Zech 12:10
"And I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born.

 

[Wrangler]

The trinity is a doctrine that must violate 4 pillars at every turn.

1. Definition
2. Logic
3. Language Usage
4. Explicit Scripture

Supporters of it must reject logic and embrace dualism, suppose contradictions exist. Not only is the trinty not in the Bible (neither the word nor the concept) but it goes against the Bible as we shall see. Trinitarians start by assuming their doctrine is correct, then develop rationalizations they claim "support" it while simultaneously ignoring evidence and arguments against it.

God is a Trinity of persons, a Tri-Unity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Found nowhere in Scripture.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.

The Father alone is identified explicity and synonymously as God throughout the NT Epistles, e.g., Eph 1:3 Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus. The juxtaposition of "God" rather than "the Father" throughout Scripture in comparison to Jesus is perhaps the strongest evidence that Jesus is not God.

Consider God so loved the world that he (singular) gave his (singular) only begotten son. NOTE: It does not say "the Father" did the giving. It does not say God came incarnate. From a language analysis perspective, "God" is the subject of the sentence doing the acting. The object of the sentence, being acted upon is "Jesus" who was not only begotten by God he was also given by God. It is not reasonable to conclude the subject of the sentence is the object of the sentence. There are many verses like this such as 1 Corinthians 11:3, God is the head of Christ. NOTE: It does not say "the Father" is the head of Christ. If Christ were God, such sentences serve no purpose.

Jesus says "the Father" is the only true God @ John 17:3. Nowhere in Scripture is Jesus said to be the one true God. This is the opposite of having the same quality. The EXACT opposite.

The Holy Spirit was not given all authority in heaven and Earth. This is the opposite of having the same quality of the son who was given this. The EXACT opposite. For those mathematicians out there, if Jesus were given all of X, how much can a person have of X who is not Jesus?

The son was raised from the dead by God. Acts 2:24 And the son is the servant of God. Acts 3:13. God made Jesus both Lord and Messiah. Acts 2:36. Jesus did not raise God from the dead. God is not Jesus' servant. And God was not made anything by Jesus. This is the opposite of having the same quality. The EXACT opposite.

the Son is almighty

The son admitted God is greater than he is and that God knows more than he does.

the Holy Spirit is almighty.

The Holy Spirit does not have ANY authority in heaven or Earth. A dualist must assert that Jesus has all authority AND deny this means the Holy Spirit has none.

the Son is eternal,

The son died, proving he is not eternal.

the Son is uncreated

By definition, a son is a created beings. Scripture even says Jesus was begotten, which means (pro-) created. Look it up.

I predict trinitarians will sweep aside all the Scripture verses I cited and only want their preferred citations up for discussion.

 

[Wrangler]

It's not so much the concept as much as harmonizing it with a consistent singular pronoun in Scripture.

And that fact that it wasn't revealed in the OT in any clear way.

A singular pronoun is contrary to the idea of referring to a plurality. And the OT reveals God's name to be known for all generations and it is not Jesus. The personal name of Jesus's God is not "God" but YHWH.

 

[Wrangler]

Here are some references, allusions to the Plurality of God in the O.T.

Not one single verse cited alludes to the plurality of God. You are assuming who God is tallking to is not other elohim, other heavenly beings.

 

[civic]

Not one single verse cited alludes to the plurality of God. You are assuming who God is tallking to is not other elohim, other heavenly beings.

I’m at work right now but will get back to you . I’m glad we have you here to challenge us and as the Bible says iron sharpening iron. You will keep me on my toes

 

[atpollard]

The Father alone is identified explicity and synonymously as God throughout the NT Epistles, e.g., Eph 1:3 Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus. The juxtaposition of "God" rather than "the Father" throughout Scripture in comparison to Jesus is perhaps the strongest evidence that Jesus is not God.

I find John 1 sufficiently clear, both explicitly in its wording and implicitly in it's parallel to Genesis 1, to emphatically disagree with you and agree with John ... Jesus is God. However, I see the statistical probability of any exchange being edifying to either of us approaching zero, so I will decline your gracious offer to debate obvious truths.

John 1​

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 That light shines in the darkness, and yet the darkness did not overcome it.​

​

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. 9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.​

​

10 He was in the world, and the world was created through him, and yet the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, he gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in his name, 13 who were born, not of natural descent, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God.​

​

14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. We observed his glory, the glory as the one and only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John testified concerning him and exclaimed, “This was the one of whom I said, ‘The one coming after me ranks ahead of me, because he existed before me.’ ”) 16 Indeed, we have all received grace upon grace from his fullness, 17 for the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side — he has revealed him.​

 

[Wrangler]

I find John 1 sufficiently clear, both explicitly in its wording and implicitly in it's parallel to Genesis 1, to emphatically disagree with you and agree with John ... Jesus is God.

I realize interpetting John 1 in a special way is vital to trinitarianism. Fact is, John 1 does not say Jesus is God. You have to read that into the text. Moreover, it contradictions what John himself said was his purpose in writing his Gospel.

A Biblical fact that is little advertised by trinitarians is that Jesus explicitly stated he has a God himself (John 20:17, Mark 15:33) who is the only true God (John 17:3). What does this mean for other gods, like the trinitarian god?

The most anti-trinitarian book in the whole Bible, John also explicitly tells us at 20:31 that everything he wrote was to prove something other than the idea that Jesus is God; namely, that Jesus is God’s Anointed. So, it is funny to see trinitarians try to twist 1:1 – and indeed, his entire Gospel - to have a purpose other than what John explicitly stated is the purpose of his Gospel!

 

[civic]

@Wrangler I will get around to discussing the deity of Christ with you soon . I have allot on my plate at the moment with work , home ( wife’s back went out) small groups etc…..

Just wanted you to know I’m not ignoring you lol.

 

[Wrangler]

I find John 1 sufficiently clear

I found this in another thread.

Romans 10:9-10 [CSB]
If you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

The juxtaposition of Jesus compared to God is everywhere. Proving Jesus is not God is found in the question of who raised Jesus from the dead in Romans 10:9?

It does not say Jesus raised himself.

It does not say "the Father" raised Jesus.

It says God - meaning in his unity and entirety - did the raising and Jesus was acted upon.

That's sufficiently clear.

 

[Wrangler]

@Wrangler I will get around to discussing the deity of Christ with you soon . I have allot on my plate at the moment with work , home ( wife’s back went out) small groups etc…..

Just wanted you to know I’m not ignoring you lol.

No problem. And thanks for following up.

I can admit some verses seem to suggest Jesus is God. Can you admit there is anything that suggests that Jesus is not God? For instance, he is not called, the son of the father. Who is he the son of again?

 

[civic]

No problem. And thanks for following up.

I can admit some verses seem to suggest Jesus is God. Can you admit there is anything that suggests that Jesus is not God? For instance, he is not called, the son of the father. Who is he the son of again?

Yes there are always 2 sides to the coin but I can explain the unitarian ones from a trinitarian perspective

 

[atpollard]

I realize interpetting John 1 in a special way is vital to trinitarianism. Fact is, John 1 does not say Jesus is God.

I told you nothing edifying would come of our exchange.

1. TRANSLATING John 1 in a special way is vital to denying the deity of Christ.
2. Not only DOES John 1 say Jesus is God, but I bolded and underlined it for others (I had no illusions that I would change the heart of a JW, or even that such a task was mine) ... unless you wish to play semantic games that the Son that John saw is not "Jesus".
3. Welcome to "ignore". (while it is generally bad form to publicly announce it, you deserved to know that I am not refusing to respond to all of your posts quoting me ... I will not be seeing them.) Life is too short to waste time on pointless arguments (like "Jesus is not really God").
4. We will BOTH have our answer to the "Deity of Christ" question on the Last Day.

 

[Wrangler]

I told you nothing edifying would come of our exchange.

That's to be expected when you disregard everything I'm saying and doubling down on points you already made.

I'll address your 3 verses from John - that you want to interpret a special way- from the perspective of 3 other verses.

1. Exodus 3:15 Yahweh (the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob) ...This is my eternal name my name to remember for all generations.
   • Jesus is never called YHWH.
2. John 17:3 Jesus says his Father is the only true God, who sent Jesus.
   • If YHWH is the only true God, according to Jesus, what does that make Jesus?
3. Romans 10:9 If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
   • The only condition for salvation is to believe that God (not "the Father") raised Jesus, (who is our lord) from the dead.

Now, let's compare how explicit these verses are to your special interpretation of John, where you ignore why John himself says he wrote the Gospel @ 20:31. He says it is to prove Jesus is the Messiah. You say it is to prove Jesus his God. I'll rely on John, not you.

TRANSLATING John 1 in a special way is vital to denying the deity of Christ.

1. Not only DOES John 1 say Jesus is God, but I bolded and underlined it for others (I had no illusions that I would change the heart of a JW, or even that such a task was mine) ... unless you wish to play semantic games that the Son that John saw is not "Jesus".

AS IF the only way to refute your claim is to deny Jesus is the son! What a sad Appeal to Strawman.

[*]Welcome to "ignore". (while it is generally bad form to publicly announce it, you deserved to know that I am not refusing to respond to all of your posts quoting me ... I will not be seeing them.)

For everyone else ...

John 11 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

V1 does not even mention Jesus but God's word.

V14 does not say God became flesh, which is what trinitarians are desperate to read into the text. V14 is the fulfillment of God saying to Moses that he will put his words into one of one chosen from the people in Duet 18:15-18, which is affirmed by Phillip in John 1:45.

18 No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side — he has revealed him.

A way you know you are dealing with a very bad translation, connected with bad doctrine is when you have to reject logic twice in 1 verse to retain your doctrine.

P1. No one has ever seen God.​

P2. People have seen Jesus.​

C. Jesus is NOT God.​

P1. Jesus sat at the right hand of God.​

P2. No one can sit at their own right hand.​

C. Jesus is NOT God.​

Regarding the underlined part; again, bad translation. I prefer the WEB which puts it this way. No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared him.

EDIT: One other very important point to make about V18 is how it undermines the trinity. It shows the story is about Father and his chosen Son. God is spirit and is holy. We know the man-is-god thesis is the heart of the trinity but we ought to never forget how each verse that exclude the one does undermine the trinity - because if they were one-in-3, they would be referenced that way throughout.

So, one is forced to conclude the Apostle writers were disobedient to the God Jesus taught them OR the trinity is a concept unknown to them. Jesus did not teach the trinity.

Life is too short to waste time on pointless arguments (like "Jesus is not really God").

Jesus himself says only the Father is the true God. That's good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for you?

 

[civic]

That's to be expected when you disregard every I'm saying and doubling down on points you already made.

I'll address your 3 verses from John that you want to interpret a special way in comparison to 3 other verses.

1. Exodus 3:15 Yahweh (the God of your ancestors—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob) ...This is my eternal name my name to remember for all generations. Jesus is never called YHWH.
2. John 17:3 Jesus says his Father is the only true God, who sent Jesus. If YHWH is the only true God, according to Jesus, what does that make Jesus?
3. Romans 10:9 If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. The only condition for salvation is to believe that God (not "the Father") raised Jesus, who is our lord, from the dead.

Now, let's compare how explicit these verses are to your special interpretation of John, where you ignore why John himself says he wrote the Gospel 20:31



AS IF the only way to refute your claim is to deny Jesus is the son! What a sad Appeal to Strawman.



For everyone else ...


V1 does not even mention Jesus but God's word.

V14 does not say God became flesh, which is what trinitarians are desperate to read into the text. V14 is the fulfillment of God saying he will put his words into one of the people in Duet 18:15-18, which is affirms by Phillip in John 1:45.



A way you know you are dealing with a very bad translation, connected with bad doctrine is when you have to reject logic twice in 1 verse to retain your doctrine.

P1. No one has ever seen God.​

P2. People have seen Jesus.​

C. Jesus is NOT God.​

P1. Jesus sat at the right hand of God.​

P2. No one can sit at their own right hand.​

C. Jesus is NOT God.​

Regarding the underlined part; again, bad translation. I prefer the VOICE which puts it this way. God, unseen until now, is revealed in the Voice, God’s only Son, straight from the Father’s heart.


Jesus himself says only the Father is the true God. That's good enough for me. Why is it not good enough for you?

I’ll be home this weekend and look forward to some good discussions with you my friend regarding the identity of YHWH in the OT.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes that Creed is excellent along with Chalcedon. Thanks for your input. I have no problem with the word person but I know many do have an issue using the word.

Those that "have an issue" do so because they refuse to recognize "Person" has multiple means. The use of "Person" in the Holy Trinity is self declaring. It is not an appeal to a exclusively human construct.

"Personality" is a problem because it implies distinct qualities of character.